Ok- Big factual error on my part, in that the LA Times op-ed penned by Wilson was in 2004, not 2003. Thanks to the alert commenter who caught that. Egg on face, mea culpa, a thousand lashes with a wet noodle, and so on. Now, as to other specific problems with #9, this re-write should address them:
9.) After the Wilson op-ed appeared, there was a renewed focus on the pre-war WMD intelligence, and within the media at large, a heavy focus on the ‘sixteen words’ that appeared in the President’s State of the Union address. A little over a week after Wilson’s NY Times op-ed, Robert Novak’s 14 July 2003 column appeared, containing the following paragraph:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. “I will not answer any question about my wife,” Wilson told me.
Wilson himself responded by publicly and appeared frequently on news shows and in other forums. He repeatedly attempted to rebut those seeking to discredit him, causing a perception that he was escalating the war of words. Contentiously, he stated during this period that his wife had nothing to do with his selection to go to Niger.
That is the re-write as of now. As for ten, let’s approach from a different angle:
10.) The time line is of crucial importance, and while the Novak story was not published until 14 July 2003, it hit the AP Wire on the 11th. Also on the 11th (11:07 am), Matt Cooper of Time sent the following email to his supervisor:
Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a “big warning” not to “get too far out on Wilson.” Rove told Cooper that Wilson’s trip had not been authorized by “DCIA”–CIA Director George Tenet–or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, “it was, KR said, Wilson’s [sic] wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD (weapons of mass destruction) issues who authorized the trip.”
Also at some point during this short time period, the following (as described in the Washington Post), is reported to have taken place:
“Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife. `Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak. A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson’s wife as `fair game.'”
Ok- Review the re-write of #9, and examine the specific details of #10. If you agree with #10, but think there should be more specific informatioin that you are aware of, include it. If you disagree, explain why.
Also, where to go from here- should we continue with a brief chronological depiction of events, and then double back and iron out thornier issues (Wilson’s op-ed claims, the opinions about the intelligence then and now), or what? Let me know via e-mail what you think should be next.
Catfish N. Cod
John, this datum appears relevant:
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1121359779.shtml
Wilson’s own tell-all book reportedly details enough events between Plame’s return from her June, 1997, overseas assignment and her outing in July, 2003, to exclude the possibility of a long-term overseas assignment during this period of time.
Given the five-year timespan of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, this should be noted.
For those on the red side of the debate: I have yet to see a discussion of the applicability of the IIPA or the Espionage Act to the indirect outing of other Brewer-Jennings Associates employees, or the outing of Brewer-Jennings Associates itself. Until I see such a discussion, I cannot agree that the IIPA cannot be applied or that the only possible charges are perjury and/or obstruction of justice.
p.lukasiak
It should be noted that although Plame may (or may not) have continued with her Brewster-Jennings cover, she remains a “covert” agent, with her cover transferring to the State Department.
As to 9&10….
I personally think that the level of narrative is too high — that the implications inherent in any “complicated” narrative are fated to arouse controversy. For instance, I disagree with the inclusion of the last clause in this statement
He repeatedly attempted to rebut those seeking to discredit him, causing a perception that he was escalating the war of words.
because it makes it sound like Wilson should be “blamed” for the “escalation” — and the actions of the White House were so inappropriate that there was nothing Wilson could have said that would have been “over the top”, IMHO.
Joel
Wilson himself responded by publicly and appeared frequently on news shows and in other forums.
Do you mean to say “Wilson himself responded publicly and….”?
I’m generally fine w/ both statements.
John Cole
P. Lukasiak- How would you phrase it?
Jackmormon
#9 is not yet grammatical, as Joel points out. I would tend to agree with it but can’t until I know what exactly you’re saying.
#10 is confusingly worded as well because the quotes aren’t clearly attributed and introduced; you switch from your narrative voice into the reporters’ narrative without clear signals. Again, I would tend to agree with it, knowing as I do that you’re probably cutting and pasting, but it’s hard to sign onto a statement that’s jarringly written. (Sorry to get technical here.)
synuclein
Yep on both 9 and 10 — I also like the WaPo quote for 10 (Missed that somewhere along the way).
I also like Catfish’s suggestion on a possible side thread on the breaking cover of Brewster-Jennings (this was in the press at the time, and has come back again recently, but never got the high profile coverage that Plame got as an individual — possibly thru actions of CIA). This could also be relevant, if the discussion diverges into questions about indictments.
Mr Furious
9 & 10. More or less “yes, I agree” I honestly can’t carefully parse this stuff anymore. At this point it’s hard to even care…
…ugh…
Stormy70
Well, well, well. Right from the horse’s mouth.
Sojourner
Stormy: You’re as fucking stupid as Darrell.
Of course she was no longer clandestine after Novak blew her identity. Because her identity was no longer a secret.
Cliff
Yes and yes, although I agree 10 could be improved.
Perhaps instead of saying “the following email” say “an email described as follows” or a less ugly phrase.
As to where to go from here, you could stick, as you have so far, with getting agreements on basic facts, “despinning” the story as another poster put it, for the rest of the timeline.
E.g., proposed 11): “Following publication of Wilson’s column, White House officials in “background” conversations with journalists, called into question the credibility of Wilson’s story”. Leave out any description of possible motives at this time. Maybe expand to specify how they called credibility into question, e.g., “by stating that his wife, a CIA employee, selected him for the trip” and if it applies (I don’t recall timeline) “by describing him as a partisan liberal who was anti-war”.
But at some point the road of agreed facts must end — not because the agreement must end, but because all the facts are not yet known.
At that point, it might be interesting to find out where and how people’s value judgments diverge through a set of What If exercises.
Revisit or examine those questions of fact that remain open at this time and ask people to give their opinion of each possibility.
Here are some (not necessarily good) example questions which have not yet been, in my opinion, definitively settled, and in fact cannot be at this time:
a) Did Valerie Plame propose Wilson (as in first put forward his name), or was she asked to give input on him?
b) Did Rove know Plame was undercover?
c) Was the WH’s motive to question the motive and credibility of Wilson, or revenge on Wilson, or a warning to whistleblowers, or part of a larger War on (some) CIA Analysts?
The questions put to readers would then be of the general form “Would it matter if …, and if so how would that affect your judgment?”
For example: “It is not known for certain at this time whether Rove knew Valerie Plame was undercover at the time he discussed her with Matt Cooper. a) Assume he didn’t know, how would this affect your judgment. b) Assume he did know, how would this affect your judgment.”
Or we could play it a bit differently: “assume we find out that X, what will you say then”…blood oaths…hard cash bets…sorry, got carried away.
For this to work, it is critical to stay away from, or have a separate thread for, arguing the merits of the specific possibilities offered. If consensus on such a fact can be found it belongs in the established list of concensus facts we’ve been working on.
E.g., if someone feels there is strong evidence Plame Proposed, or Karl Knew, and they want to argue about it, that shouldn’t clog up the What If thread.
This would be, in a sense, the exact opposite of the exercise so far, which was to argue the facts while remaining value-neutral (leaving any judgments and interpretations as to motive etc. out of it).
Here we would be pursuing judgments and interpretations while being fact-neutral.
Kudos again on a very interesting approach here and your yeoman’s work on it, John. I’d like to see this as a regular feature. Global Warming, how many lines of stem cells are there, evolution, is Dvorak really better and was Qwerty designed to prevent jamming or is that an urban myth…
Neal
I’ll agree with nine if you take out the word “Contentiously” in the sentence “Contentiously, he stated during this period that his wife had nothing to do with his selection to go to Niger.” Keeping it in there seems to me to be buying- on some level- the smear attacks on Wilson, which are ultimately irrelevant to what you’re trying to do. If what you’re doing is trying to get at the facts, then keeping that word in the post is merely endorsing the current slew of ad hominem attacks on Wilson’s character and suggesting that these attacks are something more than mere non sequiturs, in effect validating them in a way that logic does not permit us to do. It’s a logical fallacy for a reason, and it goes with what you’re doing like oil goes with water.
Yes to 10, with some grammar/syntax editing, but the content is fine.
Steve
It’s worth noting – not that this affects the wording – that Rove’s story to Cooper is already contradictory with Novak’s column at this point. Novak wrote that the CIA’s counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson for the trip. Rove said that Wilson’s wife authorized the trip.
Which of them is right? I don’t know. But if Rove is sticking by the story that he only learned about Plame from Novak’s article, then he misstated the article when he spoke to Cooper, in a pretty significant way.
Cliff
[Steve — good point]
As an example of how What-Ifs might work, in one of the earlier steps, I asked Darrell a What If (towards end of thread, at 2:10) which he kindly answered (at 2:19).
(Another poster jumped on him for his answer; ideally we would leave that sort of response out of any What If thread, that’s what the Your Values Are All Fucked Up, Man thread would be for.)
Bruce H, Scroggins
It’s what Karl Rove said… not what Joe Wilson said, or didn’t say… it’s not what Valeria Plame suggested, or didn’t suggest, and in all places
Bruce H, Scroggins
It’s what Karl Rove said… not what Joe Wilson said, or didn’t say… it’s not what Valeria Plame suggested, or didn’t suggest, and in all places
AlanDownunder
9 – ok
10 – needs to date the WaPo story
Tim F
I can get along with 9 and 10. I’m easy that way.
Catfish N. Cod
50 USC 426:
(4) The term
Defense Guy
In the interest of ‘healing’ the divide which so many of my brothers and sisters to the left tell me is ‘tearing the country apart’, I will do my part and say I have no problem with either.
Yes and Yes.
Jeff Medcalf
Yes, Yes
Bruce H, Scroggins
Hardball
7/17/05
You ask Mr. Cooper, a series of questions and he answered you as best he could, he let you know that what was in his notes, and e-mails, he spoke to the investigators about those facts. That
Bruce H, Scroggins
Hardball
7/17/05
You ask Mr. Cooper, a series of questions and he answered you as best he could, he let you know that what was in his notes, and e-mails, he spoke to the investigators about those facts. That